FBI hand written note: "Shooting reference was on each flight..."

[A-Train]

In a previous essay, I discussed the evidence that the hijackers of AAL11 had guns, and that this evidence had been covered up by the authorities. I focused on the memo sent to FAA officials based on a report from flight attendant Betty Ong that described a shooting, including the number of shots fired. I also mentioned the credible report from UAL93 passenger Tom Burnett, whose wife said that he had reported the hijackers had a gun.

I stated in my essay that these two credible pieces of evidence pointing to guns probably means guns were also used in the hijackings of the other two flights. I didn't have any evidence of this, however, until recently I came across some FBI files scanned and posted by the ever-diligent 9/11 researcher Mike Williams. There right in front of our eyes is a very interesting and curious note hand-written by some anonymous FBI agent:

http://www.911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team7_Box13_FlightCallNotes302s.pdf

Now why would this agent have written of a "shooting reference" on each flight if the 9/11 Commission has only acknowledged one (Burnett's)? What were the references to shootings from flights AAL77 and UAL175?

When we start to consider the possibility of guns in the possession of the hijackers, some questions are answered, while others are raised. The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved. The pilots were shot.

But why then did the "Arabs" bother to stab female flight attendants? Simply displaying the gun would have led to full cooperation from the entire crew. Moreover, as we'll discuss in future posts, there is evidence that the stabbings occurred after the cockpits had been commandeered and the pilots presumably shot. Could it be that the stabbings were part of a show, not any part in the actual seizing of the planes, but meant to convince the passengers that they were being hijacked by savage Arabs, so that they would convey this false impression to their loved ones in airphone calls?

In any event it is clear that regarding guns, something has been and continues to be covered up. With that thought in mind, I leave this post with a quote from an unnamed FAA official who was the leader of a "red team" that conducted security inspections. This is testimony given to the 9/11 Commission:

“There are serious indications that the FAA deceived the public about what happened on 9/11. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, I was working in one of the FAA operations centers collecting information on details of what happened during the hijacking. We received information that a firearm was used on one of the hijacked aircraft.… That evening the administrator of FAA requested an executive summary covering the day’s activities, and this information about a gun was included in the summary. Days later, without any explanation or questioning of the summary’s author, the administrator publicly announced that no guns had been used in the hijacking. Several months passed when the press re-surfaced this issue. FAA’s initial response was that no so such executive summary existed. Later, when confronted with the document, FAA admitted the executive summary existed, but denied its accuracy. Sometime later I learned that another operations center also received a report that a firearm was used.…"

 

[McHrozni]

But why then did the "Arabs" bother to stab female flight attendants? Simply displaying the gun would have led to full cooperation from the entire crew.

Possibility #1: They disagreed with you and thought killing the flight attendants would be helpful in preventing any rebellion.

If and when you prove this is impossible we can discuss further. Just bear in mind that saying "I disagree" isn't getting you anywhere. At a minimum you'll need to show a training manual stating killing of the flight crew is not desired in this situation, and show they had access to it. This is not proof, but it would make your rather preposterous assumption marginally reasonable.

McHrozni

 

[Loss Leader]

... The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved ... But why then did the "Arabs" bother to stab female flight attendants?

I'm more interested in finally uncovering the truth behind the mystery of why you used the word Arabs both with and without quotation marks.

The two different methods of writing the word Arabs suggests that your post was composed by two different writers.

I insist that the government fund an independent investigation into why NSA agents secretly sent your false flag OP.

 

[MikeW]

There right in front of our eyes is a very interesting and curious note hand-written by some anonymous FBI agent:

These were cover notes to a 9/11 Commission file, and I believe they were written by someone on the Commission - John Raidt, probably - and not an FBI agent. I don't have time to check that right now, but there are plenty of other Raidt files around, uploaded by me and at History Commons, so if someone wants to do a quick handwriting comparison then it shouldn't take long.

So why did the Commission not mention other accounts of guns? Because when they looked into them, they didn't stand up, I'd expect. I've never heard the Hansons say that Peter mentioned a gun to them, for instance, and I don't see why they would cover that up.

 

[Reheat]

I'm more interested in finally uncovering the truth behind the mystery of why you used the word Arabs both with and without quotation marks.

Obviously, you don't know A-Train. He's a Jew hating FAA Controller (I believe) who thinks that Mossad Agents did the hijackings and parachuted out of the aircraft prior to the crashes. How did they get out of the aircraft, you ask?

His most famous suggestion is that they escaped via the nose gear area where there is no access to the interior of the aircraft!

 

[beachnut]

Going on 911 years of failure. There were no guns. You missed the rest of the evidence.

The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved.

Oops, it is called surprise. Oops, one set of pilots was dying and screaming on ATC freq. Your lack of knowledge on the evidence is appalling. Please feel free to write how you have survived a surprise attack from behind while sitting, while sitting in a confined space strapped into a seat with shoulder harnesses, of someone trained to cut your throat. Get back with us on how you would call ATC while your throat is cut or fighting for your life unarmed, or how you would talk on ATC with a cut throat. How long would you be awake?

Wait, you are about to say the Jews did it! lol, you have some crazy ideas. Have you always been a bigot?

No shootings on any planes, this leaves you with 8 years wasted hate. Ong said stabbed, not shot. The shooting reference you have is called hearsay; the people were stabbed. Failure, it's what 911 truth is.

 

[Bell]

If I see a man with a gun on a plane...

 

[kookbreaker]

If I see a man with a gun on a plane...

You'll write a bat-crap crazy post on the forum?

 

[triforcharity]

In a previous essay, I discussed the evidence that the hijackers of AAL11 had guns, and that this evidence had been covered up by the authorities. I focused on the memo sent to FAA officials based on a report from flight attendant Betty Ong that described a shooting, including the number of shots fired. I also mentioned the credible report from UAL93 passenger Tom Burnett, whose wife said that he had reported the hijackers had a gun.

I stated in my essay that these two credible pieces of evidence pointing to guns probably means guns were also used in the hijackings of the other two flights. I didn't have any evidence of this, however, until recently I came across some FBI files scanned and posted by the ever-diligent 9/11 researcher Mike Williams. There right in front of our eyes is a very interesting and curious note hand-written by some anonymous FBI agent:

[qimg]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/andrewkornkven/shoot2.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team7_Box13_FlightCallNotes302s.pdf

Now why would this agent have written of a "shooting reference" on each flight if the 9/11 Commission has only acknowledged one (Burnett's)? What were the references to shootings from flights AAL77 and UAL175?

When we start to consider the possibility of guns in the possession of the hijackers, some questions are answered, while others are raised. The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved. The pilots were shot.

But why then did the "Arabs" bother to stab female flight attendants? Simply displaying the gun would have led to full cooperation from the entire crew. Moreover, as we'll discuss in future posts, there is evidence that the stabbings occurred after the cockpits had been commandeered and the pilots presumably shot. Could it be that the stabbings were part of a show, not any part in the actual seizing of the planes, but meant to convince the passengers that they were being hijacked by savage Arabs, so that they would convey this false impression to their loved ones in airphone calls?

In any event it is clear that regarding guns, something has been and continues to be covered up. With that thought in mind, I leave this post with a quote from an unnamed FAA official who was the leader of a "red team" that conducted security inspections. This is testimony given to the 9/11 Commission:

And yet, there are no sounds of gunshots reported from ATC for any of the planes.

 

[njslim]

And yet, there are no sounds of gunshots reported from ATC for any of the planes.

Dont you know ? They used silencers!

 

[Myriad]

If the note-taker meant "guns on each flight" would he not have written down "guns on each flight" instead of "shooting references on each flight?" Or did he just need the extra handwriting practice?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

In a previous essay, I discussed the evidence that the hijackers of AAL11 had guns, and that this evidence had been covered up by the authorities. I focused on the memo sent to FAA officials based on a report from flight attendant Betty Ong that described a shooting, including the number of shots fired. I also mentioned the credible report from UAL93 passenger Tom Burnett, whose wife said that he had reported the hijackers had a gun.

I stated in my essay that these two credible pieces of evidence pointing to guns probably means guns were also used in the hijackings of the other two flights. I didn't have any evidence of this, however, until recently I came across some FBI files scanned and posted by the ever-diligent 9/11 researcher Mike Williams. There right in front of our eyes is a very interesting and curious note hand-written by some anonymous FBI agent:

[qimg]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/andrewkornkven/shoot2.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team7_Box13_FlightCallNotes302s.pdf

Now why would this agent have written of a "shooting reference" on each flight if the 9/11 Commission has only acknowledged one (Burnett's)? What were the references to shootings from flights AAL77 and UAL175?

When we start to consider the possibility of guns in the possession of the hijackers, some questions are answered, while others are raised. The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved. The pilots were shot.

But why then did the "Arabs" bother to stab female flight attendants? Simply displaying the gun would have led to full cooperation from the entire crew. Moreover, as we'll discuss in future posts, there is evidence that the stabbings occurred after the cockpits had been commandeered and the pilots presumably shot. Could it be that the stabbings were part of a show, not any part in the actual seizing of the planes, but meant to convince the passengers that they were being hijacked by savage Arabs, so that they would convey this false impression to their loved ones in airphone calls?

In any event it is clear that regarding guns, something has been and continues to be covered up. With that thought in mind, I leave this post with a quote from an unnamed FAA official who was the leader of a "red team" that conducted security inspections. This is testimony given to the 9/11 Commission:

The terrorists yanked the pilots' head backward then reached around and cut their throats.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

When we start to consider the possibility of guns in the possession of the hijackers, some questions are answered, while others are raised. The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved. The pilots were shot.

Who says there is a big mystery about how the planes were taken over?
I can think of lots of ways this could be done without guns.

Just one, you force your way into cockpit with knife at flight attendants neck or obvious display of a "bomb".
You tell pilots to touch nothing.
You tell co pilot to get out of his seat and go back up the plane. Hijacker pilot gets into co-pilots seat.
You mace/kill pilot and hijacker pilot takes over the controls.


Where is a gun required???.....pilots were not trained to deal with someone who wanted to take over control of the plane so would have offered little resistance until too late.

 

[Loss Leader]

Where is a gun required???.....pilots were not trained to deal with someone who wanted to take over control of the plane so would have offered little resistance until too late.

That's something that the truthers (and many other people) forget. Before 9/11, nobody even thought that hijackers would ever want to kill pilots or crash planes. The normal hijacking involved landing in some weird country and sitting on the tarmac for three days making insane demands. The conventional wisdom was to cooperate with the hijacker and get the plane on the ground as fast as possible.

The success of the 9/11 hijackers was due in large part to the fact that killing the pilots defied expectations. They exploited a lack of imagination on our part.

Pretending that we knew then what we know now is a common but stupid mistake.

 

[gumboot]

There was no gun. The "gun" memo only existed in reference to the Betty Ong call, but neither the staff member who took the call, nor the person who supposedly was cited as the source of the gun reference recalls ever hearing of, or making mention of a gun reference. Instead, their notes refer to a stabbing - as also reported for the same flight from other sources. And funnily enough, the passenger stabbed, and the person doing the stabbing (as per seat numbers) is identical to the passenger that was supposedly shot and the person that supposedly shot them.

No mystery. No conspiracy.

 

[BigAl]

When we start to consider the possibility of guns in the possession of the hijackers, some questions are answered, while others are raised. The mystery of how pipsqueak Arabs managed to quickly overcome eight pilots and completely subdue them without any signal sent to ATC on any flight is solved. The pilots were shot.

"pipsqueak Arabs"?

Of the 19 hijackers, those that weren't pilots were trained martial arts jocks. While in the USA and waiting for the mission, they worked out at the local gym.

There is no reason to believe guns were necessary or present.

 

[Ranb]

Dont you know ? They used silencers!

Any pistol using lethal ammo is going to sound loud in a confined space, even with a silencer attached. Unless they are using one god-awful huge silencer with liquid coolant on the end of the barrel.

Ranb

 

[A-Train]

So why did the Commission not mention other accounts of guns? Because when they looked into them, they didn't stand up, I'd expect. I've never heard the Hansons say that Peter mentioned a gun to them, for instance, and I don't see why they would cover that up.

You've never heard the Hansons say what? Be honest, you've never heard them say anything. Everything you know about what they said or didn't say comes from government reports or media reports.

If there is one common refrain I run into over and over in researching 9/11 it is that all the eyewitnesses after being interviewed by the FBI were then ordered not to talk about the subject with anyone else. That applies to the phone call recipients, as well as the 911 operators who then took their calls.

Remember, the only reason we know about Tom Burnett's report of a gun is because his wife Deena ignored the order to remain silent and talked about the call to the media. Most ordinary people will not disobey an order from a law enforcement agency under any circumstances.

No one is saying the Hansons are covering something up. You remind me of David Ray Griffin with such a suggestion. He is always suggesting that anyone (like me) who doubts that Deena Burnett saw Tom's cell phone number on her caller ID when he made his first calls from UAL93 at about 9:30 (when the plane was above 30,000 feet) is "calling her a liar." The cover up is being carried out by the authorities with the complicity of the media-- not by ordinary people who received calls.

Trying to deflect criticism of the official story onto victims' families like the Hansons is a cheap tactic, Mike. I expect better from you.

 

[MikeW]

You've never heard the Hansons say what? Be honest, you've never heard them say anything. Everything you know about what they said or didn't say comes from government reports or media reports.

Uh, no. I've seen interviews with them. And very sad they were, too - they seem like a nice old couple, but still baffled by what happened.

Trying to deflect criticism of the official story onto victims' families like the Hansons is a cheap tactic, Mike. I expect better from you.

See above. They have talked to the media. You are incorrect. That is, however, exactly what I expected from you.

 

[A-Train]

Oops, it is called surprise. Oops, one set of pilots was dying and screaming on ATC freq. Your lack of knowledge on the evidence is appalling. Please feel free to write how you have survived a surprise attack from behind while sitting, while sitting in a confined space strapped into a seat with shoulder harnesses, of someone trained to cut your throat. Get back with us on how you would call ATC while your throat is cut or fighting for your life unarmed, or how you would talk on ATC with a cut throat. How long would you be awake?

People who knew Charles Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, will later contend that it would have required a difficult struggle for the hijackers to gain control of the plane from him. Burlingame was a military man who’d flown Navy jets for eight years, served several tours at the Navy’s elite Top Gun school, and been in the Naval Reserve for 17 years. His sister, Debra Burlingame, says, “This was a guy that’s been through SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation.” Admiral Timothy Keating, who was a classmate of Burlingame’s from the Navy and a flight school friend, says, “I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chick, and he pounded me.… Chick was really tough, and the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you.”

Yet the five alleged hijackers do not appear to have been the kinds of people that would be a particularly dangerous opponent. Pilot Hani Hanjour was skinny and barely over 5 feet tall. And according to the 9/11 Commission, the “so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing,” with the majority of them being between 5 feet 5 and 5 feet 7 in height, “and slender in build.”

As for the screaming pilots tape, I've examined it here and determined it to be faked. This tape was in the possession of the government for over four years before being released to the public for the Moussaoui trail. Plenty of time for fakery. Even if you doubt that, you have to admit the tape is "single source evidence." I prefer to avoid that when I do my analysis.